200 comments:

If the question is whether we have to mean what we say, Michelle's answer would have to be no. But the really important thing is: did it make you feel better getting such a nice, warm, personal message from her. She's just going ahead, trying to make your day.

"If we win, it will be because of what you did at moments like this...."

Meaning if you didn't comply, when they lost, they are going after you.

First they came for my wedding gifts, I said nothing; then they came for my pizza dinner, I said that's enough. Michelle can lighten up her $5000 dresses and taxpayers funded Antoinette tours and pay for their god damned campaign.

"A woman recently told the campaign her family skipped a pizza dinner"

Oh yea? That's nothing. I gave him 1/3 of my income for the last 3 years and all I got was blamed for his screw ups. I would gladly have rather sent him a large pizza every day, with arugula of course. People like the Obamas, who have suffered through poverty, could really appreciate that.

With work or school or family. Separate functions, not together. Brilliant. Please vote my husband into office again so he can promote government as the arbiter of good works doled out to the American people on behalf of it's welfare.

If the question is whether we have to mean what we say, Michelle's answer would have to be no. But the really important thing is: did it make you feel better getting such a nice, warm, personal message from her.

These requests, and the ones asking for $3, aren't about the money. First they know if someone donates they're vastly more likely to vote. Their secondary purpose is to drive up the total number of contributors so they can claim their average contribution is lower. Then they market the theme that their money is cleaner than those dirty Republicans's money.

I dislike all of these psuedo-personal emails, whether they come from Republicans or Democrats. The Republicans send them, too. They strike me as insincere, and make me want to take any money I gave them right back. I don't expect them to be my friend. I want them to be my responsible representative. And I don't want to hear from their wives or girlfriends at all.

"If we win, it will be because of what you did at moments like this...."

Instead of asking for working families to give up their pizzas, she should ask all those Sandra Flukes to fork over their contraceptive allowances, seeing how they forced the health insurers to cover it for "free."

First they came for those they deemed overweight, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't overweight.Then they came for the video games, and I didn't speak out because I didn't play video games.Then they came for my wedding gifts and I didn't speak out because I wasn't invited to any weddings anyway.

Then they came for my pizza. So I just said, "Hey, Michelle, thank you for everything you do too. Now shoo!"

"Just as Moslems fast on Ramadan, we are asking you to fast for Barack! Please stop eating, and send your grocery money to "WorshipBarack2012.com" And just think what this will do for the obesity crisis!

Nobody likes pennys really. Its worth less than the face value, it is a frequent tip given for very poor service, it will take them time to deal with it, and you can tell your liberal friends you donated to the Obama campaign.

Include a note that it was Michelles idea more or less because you still had to pay for food you eat and the price of food is skyrocketting.

I'd personally rather have a faith-based, hard working businessman with a virtuous First Lady than the clowns/frauds/elitists that are there today. You're right, it is still politics. But at least we can de-louse the place a bit.

The more I read about their desperation for donations and am reminded about the totally asinine comments BOTH of them made - from the arugula one, to bankrupting coal companies to 'bitter clingers' to THIS one today the more appalled I am by them, not only their policies but by their lack of humility and humanity.

Seriously, the FLOTUS sees nothing wrong with people giving up FOOD to help them win re-election.

Disgusting.

If a Rep candidate had said 10% of the garbage that Obama did he would have been hounded from the race.

Shootist said... The saddest part of all of this is, nothing we do as voters will change anything, but the faces, in Washington, DC.

Maybe this will turn out true. But Romney says he's running as a businessman to fix spending. What would a turnaround CEO do? First he'd look to see what he could excise completely. I personally doubt there's going to be much of that [other than Obamacare I hope]even though there should be. Getting rid of the Departments of Education and Agriculture in total isn't going to happen.

But the next step is to tell every department they have to cut X amount of spending and see what they do. If they claim the only thing they can do is close the Washington Monument you fire them on the spot. If they come back with a workable plan you go through it and identify the sacrifices we're best able to live with.

Isn't this what Walker did in Wisconsin? It can be done, if you have the will to do it.

Allie, Michelle is involved in high level American politics. She by definition is not virtuous. It comes with the territory. Lying is required, and she does it with charm.

My opinion of her virtue was pretty much formed when I learned about the doubling in salary she got at U of C hospital when her husband was elected United States Senator. It was pretty clear what that was all about.

No it wash't illegal. It's just how things are done in Chicago. Blago's wife's real estate brokerage became more and more lucrative as he climbed the political ladder. It's not illegal. But it's not virtuous.

I don't know that Michelle is any less virtuous than Anne. (Ann?) But I have to admit that I can't figure out how *anyone* working at a Hospital should have been paid what she was paid. Maybe the brain surgeon or the very very top CEO? But she had some sort of advocacy something or other... no? I'm not sure what it was. I just know that hiked up insurance and medicare claims paid for her, because the money has to come from some place.

I don't mind people doing well, but that's a crap load of money added to the expense of receiving care at that hospital.

Organizations only pay that sort of money if they make more money than that in return. It makes the suggestion that her "job" was "payment" for State Congressman Obama's (or whatever he was) political favor serious enough that someone *should* have investigated it.

A virtuous woman might say that she does not need a completely separate taxpayer funded half million dollar plane ride so she can get to her Hawaii vacation 6 hours before her husband does. She might not fly at government expense to Spain to vacation with her wealthy friends. She might not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on clothing while professing concern about poverty. She might object to demonizing millions of Americans for their political-religious views in opposing abortion (without having to change her own viewpoint, mind you.)

As you may remember from other posts, I kind of like Michelle. It's ok to take the goodies while she can. Certainly she has to give up things as well in her position. But virtuous? When did you last get your salary doubled in a year?

Michelle's only regret is that her consort hasn't degraded America - yet - to the level at which she will be able to emulate her role model, Winnie Mandela, and necklace to her heart's content. But "We're gettin' there, hon'" is their nightly pillow talk.

I remember Juanita Broddrick's open letter to Hillary Clinton Oct 15, 2000: "As soon as youentered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you rememberhow you thanked me, saying "we want to thank you for everything that you do forBill". At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how youkept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement,but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in thelast eight years. You said, "Everything you do for Bill". You then released your gripand I said nothing and left the gathering."

Organizations only pay that sort of money if they make more money than that in return. It makes the suggestion that her "job" was "payment" for State Congressman Obama's (or whatever he was) political favor serious enough that someone *should* have investigated it.

Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of earmarks he requested, $1 million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.

You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?

Michelle Obama. She’s vice president of community affairs.

As Byron noted, “In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.”

Does it matter if it was $467 thousand or million? I am surprised that Garage would equate principal to the amount of money squandered. (Not stolen, Garage. The beauty of the entire system of political corruption these days is that it can be engaged in perfectly legally. Obama can fly around the country politicing and the taxpayer pays for it. Ann Romney gets--or Allie says she gets--a $77,000 tax credit for her horse. O sells a sliver of land to Rezko so he can finance a house. Harry Reid gets rich on a Congressional salary. George H.W. Bush gets $2 million for a speech in Japan shortly after he leaves office. It's all legal. Hey. it's only money. We can always borrow more. For now.)

"How virtuous it makes Ann Romney that her horse gets her a $77,000 tax credit"

You wouldn't take it? I would, because I can't think of a less virtuous thing to do with money than give it to this government. Most, if not all, of the money the Romenys save on taxes get used better by them than it does if they give it to the treasury. A large percentage is given to charity, and much of the rest is invested in businesses that create jobs and economic activity. We should all be thankful they get such a credit. They already pay the tax burden for hundreds of other citizens.

What is not virtuous in this regard is buying personal vacations and amenities with money that has been extracted by force from people like the Romeny's, or you and me.

Members of Mitt Romney's faith skip two meals once a month for a 24 hour fast (eat dinner, skip breakfast and lunch, eat dinner). They donate the money saved by not eating those two meals to the poor. The Romney campaign should counter Michelle's email with a request that people skip a meal and donate the money to their favorite charity, not a political campaign.

I am surprised that Garage would equate principal to the amount of money squandered

Point me to your principled objections to Laura Bush's vacations. Nobody cared how much money was spent on that. Nobody really cares now either, but some people just hate Michelle Obama. With some, it's a bizarre and creepy hobby, of sorts.

The saddest part of all this is, nothing we do as voters will change anything, but the faces, in Washington, D.C.

I sorta kinda agree. Except that the Republicans have the sense to squeeze the golden goose, not wring its neck. And that translates to a significantly less harried peasantry (all of us outside the DC buttercup).

Allie: Chicago political machine from birth?! So anyone born in Chicago is not virtuous, LMAO.

Her father was a ward heeler who was paid $42,000 a year to open a water pump (more than most Chicago teachers in those days). Her family was on political patronage during her entire childhood and she went to work for Daley when she got out of school.

Do you Obots know anything about the people you idolize? (Not that I think it would make any difference in the idolatry, mind you. Think Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton.)

Allie, Michelle lost he virtue in the traditional way. She gave it away when she wanted something. Now she wants to keep something. There are far, far worse than Michelle Obama. I'm sure that she is virtuous in many things she does. I would bet a large amount that she does not cheat on Barack. She clearly tries to be a good mother. She's taking care of her mother. etc, etc. But calling someone virtuous is like saying they are a virgin. Either you are or you are not. In personal morality anything less than virtue is ambiguity. All the way to downright evil. In other words human. Do you want us to say that Michelle is not human? Or do you just want her to be beyond criticism? Why should be the first in her position beyond criticism?

You should skip dinner tonight and send someone some money, Allie. Anyone. It will do you good.

Machelle Obama is insisting on you sending her husband money for his reelection. So, I though I would check to see how much money she has sent others for their elections. OpenSecrets.org allows such a search for federal candidates for the last 22 years. Such a search shows her giving $0 to federal candidates. (Barack does slightly better, in that he gave money to Hillary Clinton in 2008 as part of getting her endorsement. But he gave no money to others from 1990 to date.)

Tonight I'll take the stage in Charlotte to talk about why my husband -- and our president -- is the right man for the job.

Twenty-three years ago, I fell in love with Barack because of his passion, sense of purpose, and his determination to make life better for other people. It's just who he is -- and it's who he continues to be every day in the White House.

And for these next two months, we've got to give it everything we've got so that we have the chance to finish what we started.

Already this week, folks have chipped in more than 120,000 grassroots donations to help build this organization. That's just incredible.

So let's see how many people we can get to chip in by the end of this convention. If you think Barack's the right man for the job, please show your support with a donation of $3 or more today:

I don't object to Laura Bush's vacations. Or to Michelle's, though there is a bit of a contrast in the spending level. I do object to saying that Michelle is some paragon of virtue. Let Michelle go around the world on the taxpayer dime to meet her friends on trips with minimal public purpose. It's ok. She probably gets some good will for the USA by being somewhere. Her choices are legal. They are in the range of traditional behavior for someone in her position. But they are also expensive at someone else's expense and self indulgent. So don't tell me how virtuous she is.

I don't think the presidential families are entitled to spend any of our money on vacations - Bushes, Obamas, Romneys, all of em. Who goes on vacation, and gets their employer to pay the bill. Pay for your own damned vacation. We should pay for security, and safety expenses, but that's it.We need to start seeing this as the job it is - not some royalty bullshit.

First, there is no credit. It's a potential loss. A credit is deducted against the tax libaility, a loss or deduction is subtracted from income before the tax rate is applied.

Second, the Romneys reported the expenses related to the horse so that if and only if the horse generates income in the future they can offset the expenses and pay tax only on their net income. This follows a principle that expenses to generate income are deductible, otherwise you'd be taxed on revenue rather than net or taxable income.

All of this is completely unobjectionable except by the ignorant and dishonest.

Bags, if you take your position to the extreme, they would never go anywhere. If Michelle travels, security demands the full entourage. That's the way it is. But it does not demand Spain over someplace less expensive to the taxpayer, or a separate trip to the Vinyard or Hawaii to get there a few hours earlier. She has the right to make those choices. But they are not "virtuous" choices.

Every First Lady I can remember (and I can remember Bess Truman) has taken crap for this or that. But now they are taking extensive and expensive public roles. Only Laura Bush tried to dial that back, and maybe Mrs. Carter. But since Kennedy they have taken a different role, and now we seem to demand it. But we don't have to swallow bullshit like Allie's about how fabulous they are. If a first lady wants to be spendthrift with public money, it's fair to criticize.

AllieOop said... No one should be beyond criticism David, but slandering someone for political purposes isn't at all virtuous. Michelle was a political operative from birth, huh?

She must mean unless they're Republican. She certainly showed no remorse about slandering the Romneys.

It's always a double standard. Denying that someone is virtuous is neutral. She objects to that when directed at a Democrat. But spreading lies about a Republican? Not only is that ok, she does it herself.

The question, Marshall, is whether the horse is a hobby or a business. Despite it's therapeutic value, it sure as hell was not a medical expense.

A virtuous approach might have been to concede from the outset that the horse thing was a personal hobby not a business.

You probably are right that the amount was a deduction not a credit. I do not think that there are tax credits for show horses. She will have to recapture that deduction if but only if she ever makes a profit on the horse. Making a profit is of course one of the elements of whether an entreprise is a genuine business.

I don't think the presidential families are entitled to spend any of our money on vacations - Bushes, Obamas, Romneys, all of em. Who goes on vacation, and gets their employer to pay the bill. Pay for your own damned vacation. We should pay for security, and safety expenses, but that's it.We need to start seeing this as the job it is - not some royalty bullshit.

Give them a budget for travel. If they go over, they can pay out of pocket or got to Congress for more.

It is being reported as a hobby, that's why there is no deduction unless there is income. Are you telling me that you believe that when a hobby generates income you should not deduct the expenses to generate the income? So if you fix old cars as your hobby when you sell them you shouldn't deduct the cost of the parts you purchased to restore it?

But I didn't. I said we pay for security, so they can go anywhere they would go if they were private citizens, and spend just as much on everything else as they would if it wasn't on someone eles's dime.

Frankly it's a shame we can't elect people with enough conscience to behave this way voluntarily.

I would never make my company pay for my vacation as an expense, even if it was legal. It's disrespectful of other people who work there. They are paid according to company performance, and that would, in effect, be stealing from them.

How about I sit on my ass and wait for the Democrats to give me TWO pizzas covered with yummy government cheese? Tonight, two pizzas on order for movie night - one sausage/onion and green pepper and the other pepperoni. Really. Not kidding.

How about I sit on my ass and wait for the Democrats to give me TWO pizzas covered with yummy government cheese? Tonight, two pizzas on order for movie night - one sausage/onion and green pepper and the other pepperoni. Really. Not kidding.

"Finding the link to her Dad's salary was easy yesterday, and impossible today. I wonder why."

Rush brought it up on his show today and stated it was $52K and added that with adjustment to inflation that would be 208K today, which I just verified is correct. Michelle's mother also worked as a secretary for a large corporation, so they were never poor or even average.

I bet Rush is the impetus to making that info disappear. They don't like a lot of sunshine, especially during convention week..

Anny Romney and two other people, including the horses rider, have a partnership that owns the horse. Ann loaned money to the partnership to buy the horse, and she receives and pays tax on interest on the loan.

The partners treat the partnership as a business. It files an information return and its income and losses flow through to the partners proportionate to their interest in the enterprise.

For the year in question, Ann Romney was allocated a share of the partnership's losses (it's expenses over income) of $77,000. Because she did not claim to be actively engaged in the business, she had a so called passive activity loss. That loss can not legally be deducted against interest, capital gains, compensation income, capital gains and other types of investment or compensation income. Because Ann (and perhaps Mitt) had no active business income, they could not deduct the $77,000 loss against income for the year in question. Thus their taxes were not reduced by the loss.

The losses carry forward to future years, so if Ann ever has income from the partnership, that income will be offset by the loss carry forward. That loss might also offset any "active business income" Mitt has in the future. Active business income is a technical term and it is fairly rare. Mitt and Ann had no such income in the tax year in question despite their wealth and the complication of their return.

The question of whether the activity is a business or a hobby is still an open one, and depends on a lot of circumstances.

Bottom line: (1) no tax credit at all, (2) the tax loss of the partnership did not reduce the Romneys' takes, (3) the losses carry forward against future profit if the partnership ever makes one, (4) the question of hobby vs. business is open to audit and can change in the future depending on the facts.

The rules on whether an activity is a hobby or a business are exactly the same for horse activities as for anything else. The only difference is that most activities are presumed to be a business for tax purposes of they make a profit in three of any five consecutive years. For horse breeding, trading, showing or racing, the taxpayer is entitled to the presumption of they show a profit in two of any seven consecutive years. That is the only special provision for horses, and it goes only to the question of the presumption.

So I say again: if the activity is a hobby, nothing would be filed. If it is a hobby, losses are never deductible in any form.

The rules go to the question of whether there is a hobby or a business.

Michelle says "Thank you for everything you do."And yet Shiloh, Garage and others say you encourage cons on this site. Well, the next time they start, let's just remind them that Michelle herself thanked you for "everything". I'm going out for pizza with double cheese and anchovies. (The Dems just finished booing God and the Jews.)

So I say again: if the activity is a hobby, nothing would be filed. If it is a hobby, losses are never deductible in any form.

The rules go to the question of whether there is a hobby or a business.

The rules start with identifying what is a hobby, but they don't end there. Hobby expenses are only deductible to the extent of related income. If your desciption of hobby rules were complete where does this one come from?

We're dealing with a subset of hobbies, hobbies that can produce income. The tax rules state you don't have to pay tax on gross hobby income, you're allowed to deduct the related expenses first. But you have to document and report the expenses as they occur. The 77k on the Romney return is this amount.

If the Romneys did not report this figure they would eventually be required to pay tax on the gross proceeds from any sale of the horse. So let's say the 77k is the purchase of the horse (it's probably not, but it doesn't matter for illustration). Then let's say they sell the horse for 50k after this season (since the Olympics are over). Do you believe they should pay income tax on 50k when they incurred a 27k loss?

There is this psychology thing, in which if you accept something from someone, then you feel obligated. So if you feel you are a good person, and you were just personally complimented by MO herself, don't you feel like giving back something?

Personally, I think it ought to come in the form of a vote for the opposition, but that's just me.

Hi I'm a Dem here. This is made in good faith! Thought I'd write in an explain why what she wrote in this e-mail might actually appeal to people who support the Democratic Party. We are the party of working people, and until the Voting Rights Act drove the Dixiecrats over to the Republican side, there was no question of that. You may disagree, but that is how we see ourselves. We are running for president a fellow who only paid off his student loans after he was in the senate. You are running for president a guy who is very rich, and was born that way. You may disagree but that is how we see it. You see a candidate's wife asking broke people to give money to their campaign. I see a candidate's wife appealing to people in our economy right now who are taking it on the chin, but are willing to chip in more to make sure we don't elect another plutocrat like george bush. Obama and Romney both got law degrees from Harvard. Only one of them went into debt to take that chance. Obama and Romney both fundraise from bankers and hedge funders. Only one of them is actually still collecting dividends from corporate raiders.

So why, Elias, was John Kerry's fantastic wealth not a problem for your party? Why was W's falsely alleged lack of military service an issue, but Obama's actual lack of service was not? It's almost like you people are lying hypocrites with no ideas, integrity, or actual policy arguments. Your entire party is premised on worshiping a babbling, lying doofus while the Republican party is presenting a qualified candidate.

I find it interesting that a conservative blogger would receive fundraising requests from the Democratic Party, but perhaps you subscribe to get a balanced view. That being said, I am subscribed and get a plethora of fundraising request from Obama's campaign and the Democratic Party, amongst other organizations. NOT ONCE have I received the letter above, and therefore, in my opinion, consider it a fraud. Also, this letter differs from another purported SIMILAR letter on another website, but they are not exactly the same. Amazing that a blanket e-mail somehow is different? Trust me, I've ran my own campaign, that this is a dead giveaway you're being hoodwinked by liars......I'm sure the one on THIS website will change to match....BUT I HAVE SCREEN SHOTS OF BOTH NOW.....LOL. And a friend of mine at Google has archived both as well.....LMAO.